Should Jehovah's Witnesses provide blood transfusions?

[the makeout hobo]

So let's say that I am a Jehovah's Witness. My religion prohibits blood transfusions. If I am an employer who provides my employees health care, should I be forced to pay to cover blood transfusions? A resistance to blood transfusions is a cornerstone to my religion, something that I believe very strongly in. Why should I have to pay for them?

 

[Tigger]

So let's say that I am a Jehovah's Witness. My religion prohibits blood transfusions. If I am an employer who provides my employees health care, should I be forced to pay to cover blood transfusions? A resistance to blood transfusions is a cornerstone to my religion, something that I believe very strongly in. Why should I have to pay for them?

IF your business is directly related to your religious beliefs then I would suggest you should not be required to include such coverage. IF your business is NOT directly related to your religious beliefs, then I would suggest that your religious beliefs are not relevant to the running of the business.

 

[sharon]

IF your business is directly related to your religious beliefs then I would suggest you should not be required to include such coverage. IF your business is NOT directly related to your religious beliefs, then I would suggest that your religious beliefs are not relevant to the running of the business.

IMO.. Jehovah's Witnesses who find themselves in a health emergency should NOT go to a hospital and compromise the nurses and physicians who work there.

 

[MaggieD]

So let's say that I am a Jehovah's Witness. My religion prohibits blood transfusions. If I am an employer who provides my employees health care, should I be forced to pay to cover blood transfusions? A resistance to blood transfusions is a cornerstone to my religion, something that I believe very strongly in. Why should I have to pay for them?

I suggest you provide full coverage and not try to impose your religious beliefs on other people. Ridiculous concept. Just like the Catholic Church.

 

[1Perry]

IF your business is directly related to your religious beliefs then I would suggest you should not be required to include such coverage. IF your business is NOT directly related to your religious beliefs, then I would suggest that your religious beliefs are not relevant to the running of the business.

I'd come down pretty close to this also.

 

[Kali]

No offense to the Jehovah's Witness but I have always found it strange and downright sad that kids and babies die because of this Screw religion when it comes to life saving. It is like murder or child abuse to me:shock:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So let's say that I am a Jehovah's Witness. My religion prohibits blood transfusions. If I am an employer who provides my employees health care, should I be forced to pay to cover blood transfusions? A resistance to blood transfusions is a cornerstone to my religion, something that I believe very strongly in. Why should I have to pay for them?

This is a good example of why health insurance shouldnt' be tied to your employer like a lifeline.

You get tethered to your employers religious beliefs even if YOU don't hold those same beliefs.

It's bull****. Religion is becoming a vice to control people in ways that should never be allowed purely because of the sutpidity behind employer-paid health insurance.

They should pay some EXTRA if employment with them puts you in dangerous situations and so on - but basic health care insurance coversage should be non-related and unaffected by your work environment.

The catholic-birth control thing is a good example: not EVERYONE working in a Catholic hospital, school (etc) IS necessarily of that same faith - the more public-related the business is the more this is evident.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

So let's say that I am a Jehovah's Witness. My religion prohibits blood transfusions. If I am an employer who provides my employees health care, should I be forced to pay to cover blood transfusions? A resistance to blood transfusions is a cornerstone to my religion, something that I believe very strongly in. Why should I have to pay for them?

If you are the employer, at least in the past, could you not set in the health care plan what was and was not covered

 

[RDS]

Jehovah's Witness is a pain in the ass.

In 1972 the Singapore government de-registered and banned the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore on the grounds that its members refuse to perform military service (which is obligatory for all male citizens), salute the flag, or swear oaths of allegiance to the state.[7][8] Singapore has banned all written materials published by the International Bible Students Association and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, both publishing arms of the Jehovah's Witnesses. A person in possession of a prohibited publication can be fined up to $1500 (Singapore Dollars $2,000) and jailed up to 12 months for a first conviction.[2]

Religion in Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[the makeout hobo]

IF your business is directly related to your religious beliefs then I would suggest you should not be required to include such coverage. IF your business is NOT directly related to your religious beliefs, then I would suggest that your religious beliefs are not relevant to the running of the business.

I think that this looks like a common sense line, but where do you draw the line at what is "directly related"? I mean, I think we can all agree that if I worked at Bethel, the JW headquarters in New York, the business is directly related to religous beliefs. But is a school or hospital? Is a landscaping company, if I only mow lawns at JW churches? It's not quite so cut/dry.

 

[the makeout hobo]

No offense to the Jehovah's Witness but I have always found it strange and downright sad that kids and babies die because of this Screw religion when it comes to life saving. It is like murder or child abuse to me:shock:

My father is a Witness, and if I ever had to make the decision, I would order the doctor to give him a transfusion, damn his religious beliefs.

 

[kerussll]

No offense to the Jehovah's Witness but I have always found it strange and downright sad that kids and babies die because of this Screw religion when it comes to life saving. It is like murder or child abuse to me:shock:

Thankfully, parents can be overruled in situations like this.

 

[obvious Child]

At what point do religious organizations get to decide what they don't want to pay for? The fact that the vast majority of Catholic women use birth control undermines the Church's position. If your religion believes in Young Earth Creationism, should you be exempt from paying taxes that go towards teaching evolution in classrooms?

 

[Tigger]

I think that this looks like a common sense line, but where do you draw the line at what is "directly related"? I mean, I think we can all agree that if I worked at Bethel, the JW headquarters in New York, the business is directly related to religous beliefs. But is a school or hospital? Is a landscaping company, if I only mow lawns at JW churches? It's not quite so cut/dry.

It's not that difficult, I don't believe. A couple simple criteria....

1. Is employment with the company contingent on a particular religious denomination?
2. Is the company's clientelle contingent on a particular religious denomination? (75%+)
3. Is the company's business directly related to the work of a particular denomination? (75%+)

If so, then they should be exempt. If not, then they should not be.

 

[tecoyah]

So let's say that I am a Jehovah's Witness. My religion prohibits blood transfusions. If I am an employer who provides my employees health care, should I be forced to pay to cover blood transfusions? A resistance to blood transfusions is a cornerstone to my religion, something that I believe very strongly in. Why should I have to pay for them?

Because...the law says you do. Religions are not exempt from society and it's laws.

 

[sharon]

When you are admitted to hospital with a medical emergency, you don't choose from a menu of services...

Is it right for a patient to compromise the medical staff and physicians with a refusal to have certain life saving procedures? If a physician knows that the life of a young parent or child can be saved with a blood transfusion, should they be forced to stand by and let the patient die?

 

[Tigger]

When you are admitted to hospital with a medical emergency, you don't choose from a menu of services...

Is it right for a patient to compromise the medical staff and physicians with a refusal to have certain life saving procedures? If a physician knows that the life of a young parent or child can be saved with a blood transfusion, should they be forced to stand by and let the patient die?

On the other hand, imagine what I'm going to do to that doctor who saves my life IF/WHEN he ignores my DNR and Living Will and does something to me that I have specifically (in writing and notarized to boot) stated I don't want done to me. There are going to be TWO dead people shortly thereafter and I'm only going to be ONE of them.

 

[ksu_aviator]

So let's say that I am a Jehovah's Witness. My religion prohibits blood transfusions. If I am an employer who provides my employees health care, should I be forced to pay to cover blood transfusions? A resistance to blood transfusions is a cornerstone to my religion, something that I believe very strongly in. Why should I have to pay for them?

This is the problem with an over reaching federal government. When the government requires an action, then numerous people chime in with exceptions that they want for themselves. Of course, the government gives in and in the end you end up with a law that is so complicated, no one can possibly meet all the requirements.

In the case of Obamacare, people are starting to find out it wasn't just the huge multinational corporations that had to buy health insurance, but every small business that is just barely hanging on as it is. Guess which of the two will survive? It ain't the little guy. So if "you" are voting for Democrats because they are "for the little guy" you might look at the consequences of their actions. The Wal-mart's of the world are going to get a bigger market share as a result of Obamacare.

IF your business is directly related to your religious beliefs then I would suggest you should not be required to include such coverage. IF your business is NOT directly related to your religious beliefs, then I would suggest that your religious beliefs are not relevant to the running of the business.

Why should your 1st amendment rights be suspended if you own a business?

I suggest you provide full coverage and not try to impose your religious beliefs on other people. Ridiculous concept. Just like the Catholic Church.

How is an employer that doesn't provide insurance for blood transfusions or contraception forcing their religious beliefs on any one? Employees are not slaves, they can work somewhere else. The reality is, Obamacare is forcing secularism on religion.

This is a good example of why health insurance shouldnt' be tied to your employer like a lifeline.

You get tethered to your employers religious beliefs even if YOU don't hold those same beliefs.

It's bull****. Religion is becoming a vice to control people in ways that should never be allowed purely because of the sutpidity behind employer-paid health insurance.

They should pay some EXTRA if employment with them puts you in dangerous situations and so on - but basic health care insurance coversage should be non-related and unaffected by your work environment.

The catholic-birth control thing is a good example: not EVERYONE working in a Catholic hospital, school (etc) IS necessarily of that same faith - the more public-related the business is the more this is evident.

So you would like to repeal the portion of the First Amendment that allows freedom of religion in favor of laws controlling what people can and can't believe?

 

[sharon]

On the other hand, imagine what I'm going to do to that doctor who saves my life IF/WHEN he ignores my DNR and Living Will and does something to me that I have specifically (in writing and notarized to boot) stated I don't want done to me. There are going to be TWO dead people shortly thereafter and I'm only going to be ONE of them.

We are not talking about DNR or Living Wills here.. nor are we talking about the terminally ill.. We are talking about peer reviewed highest and best practice..

My hospital saved the life of a drop in maternity patient who proceeded to bleed out after delivery in the ER.. She had four children under six at home. She was transfused.. Her husband tried to stop it.. She could not speak for herself in the moment.

A twenty minute blood transfusion saved her life... The really telling result was that within 20 minutes, an Atlanta lawyer called threatening a lawsuit.. It was as if the Jehovah's Witness father had him on speed dial.

Quite naturally, they were indigent.........

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Jehovah's Witness is a pain in the ass.



Religion in Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JW's don't bother anyone really, they don't advocate overthrow of the state.
Banning them is stupid.

In all, JW's are pretty good folks.

 

[tecoyah]

JW's don't bother anyone really, they don't advocate overthrow of the state.
Banning them is stupid.

In all, JW's are pretty good folks.

Agreed...my brother is JW. The issue is not if they are a quiet religion, it is simply that they ARE citizens and thus as subject to societal law as I am. If we decide they are exempt, then who's next. Just as the SCOTUS allowed a church to bypass the ADA...Does that not mean a Mosque can decide Sharia law trumps Federal Law?

Either we have laws that cover everyone...or we don't! Welcome to The Ice covered Hill.

 

[Tigger]

We are not talking about DNR or Living Wills here.. nor are we talking about the terminally ill.. We are talking about peer reviewed highest and best practice.

My living will (and other legal paperwork) cover a nuber of things that would not necessarily be considered "life threatening". It covers the denial of use of any THC-derivative pain killer or optamological products. It covers the lack of acceptance of any government paid-for medical care. It covers several other things as well.

Believe it or not, some of us put our PRINCIPLES above our own health and always will. Who the hell are you, or anyone else to tell us that we should not have that right?

 

[sharon]

My living will (and other legal paperwork) cover a nuber of things that would not necessarily be considered "life threatening". It covers the denial of use of any THC-derivative pain killer or optamological products. It covers the lack of acceptance of any government paid-for medical care. It covers several other things as well.

Believe it or not, some of us put our PRINCIPLES above our own health and always will. Who the hell are you, or anyone else to tell us that we should not have that right?

I am not telling you anything, so stop cursing at me.

Principles before health is certainly your right.. I have always had responsibilities and obligations to family.

 

[Tigger]

I am not telling you anything, so stop cursing at me.

"Your hospital" indicates to me that you are employed at the facility. A facility that you seem to believe knows better than I (in the general) do, what is in my (again general) best interest. Sorry, but the doctor works for the patient, not the other way around; or has something changed in the system that I'm not aware of?

Principles before health is certainly your right.. I have always had responsibilities and obligations to family.

Principles before ANYTHING, sharon. If I do not have my Soul, then there is nothing else of any value. My obligations are to something higher than anything in this world.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So you would like to repeal the portion of the First Amendment that allows freedom of religion in favor of laws controlling what people can and can't believe?

I'd like to separate health insurance from employment.

It would be up to the insurance company and individual to decide what to provide (etc). It wouldn't be the business of a religion that you may or may not be a part of - does it make sense that the Pope can dictate the health coverage of a non-believer? Maybe someone who's Jewish, Protestant or even Muslim? This is a likely chance - not every single person working in an 'Catholic' facility like a hospital IS religious - thus - they're overreaching their religious boundaries when these not of their faith are actually being affected. That's not how it should work.

This problem would then be solved if we just severed basic health insurance from employment.

The only time it makes sense for an employer to provide some type of coverage is when it's a compromising position: like the military or dangerous labor services like mining . . . but that shouldn't be *the whole* of the insurance - that should be *some extra* insurance to cover common ailments (etc) that might happen - and so on. . . much in the same way they add in a bit to your auto insurance if you have to drive your own vehicle for work purposes and so on.